Summary: (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------S.5, Sched.---Suit for dissolution of marriage---Amendment in pleadings---Scope---Petitioner assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby an application of the respondent seeking amendment in her suit in the title, body and likewise in the prayer clause by seeking dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula instead of dissolution on the basis of cruelty was allowed---Validity---Family Court, by allowing the amendment, had not exceeded its jurisdiction and the order was passed in the best interest of both the parties to avoid anotherround of litigation between themselves---Trial Court had not committed any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.(b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------S.5, Sched.---Suit for dissolution of marriage---Procedure---Scope---Family Court is competent to regulate its own proceedings for expeditious disposal of matrimonial disputes as the Family Courts Act, 1964, does not make provisions for every conceivable eventuality or unforeseen circumstances .Akhtar Ali Said Beha v. Mst. Naheed Bibi PLD 2003 Pesh. 630 ref.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. VI, R. 17---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Amendment in plaint---Scope---Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction with the avermentsthat he was owner of water channel at his properties while the defendants illegallydiverted the water channel towards their properties---Plaintiff through application foramendment in plaint sought inclusion of khasra number in the list of suit properties---Trial Court dismissed the application by observing that it did not disclose any cause ofaction and the plaintiff was provided several opportunities to record his statement, but hefailed to get his statement recorded and wanted to prolong the matter---Appellate Courtdismissed revision petition---Validity---Plaintiff had failed to point out any illegality orirregularity, misreading and non-reading of evidence in the concurrent findings of thecourts below---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly

Summary: Facts:The appellants, descendants of the original mortgagors, sought declaration of title over land mortgaged in 1882 to evacuee mortgagees, which was recorded in the revenue records. Due to a clerical error, the mortgage year was incorrectly pleaded as 1914 in the suit, conflicting with the actual redemption year of 1913. This led to the dismissal of their suit by the lower courts as contradictory and self-destructive. The appellants sought to correct this error and challenge the impugned mutation that recorded the government's resumption of the mortgaged land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.Issues:1)The effect of the clerical error in pleading the mortgage year and its impact on the appellants' claim.--2)The legality of the impugned mutation that resumed the mortgaged land in favor of the government.--3)The appellants' locus standi and entitlement to the mortgaged land based on the redemption mutation.----Judgment:The Supreme Court found the impugned mutation resuming the mortgaged land in favor of the government to be illegal, as it should have only affected the mortgagee rights and not the ownership rights of the land. The Court allowed the amendment to correct the factual error in the mortgage year in the plaint and remanded the case for fresh adjudication regarding the appellants' title to the land.---Rationale:The Court noted that the clerical error in pleading the mortgage year rendered a reasonable factual plea based on the redemption mutation futile. The Supreme Court emphasized that the impugned mutation was illegal as per the ruling in Samar Gul v. Central Government, which stated that only mortgagee rights could be resumed by the government, not the ownership rights of the land. The amendment sought by the appellants did not alter the nature of the case but brought clarity, allowing for a fair adjudication.---Decision:The appeal was partly allowed. The case was remanded to the trial court for fresh adjudication on the appellants' title to the land, considering the amendment to correct the mortgage year and the illegality of the impugned mutation. The respondents were entitled to hold only the interest of evacuee mortgagees in the suit land, necessitating correction in the relevant revenue records. No order as to costs was made.----''The amendment application by the appellants/plaintiffs for incorporating the correct date of the mortgage in the plaint does not alter the nature of the case pleaded by them. The prayer for the incorporation of an undisputed fact is of a formal nature and brings factual clarity which promotes the fair adjudication of the controversy and the interest of justice. Compliance with the said criteria satisfies the principles for allowing amendment in pleadings even by the highest Court.''

Summary: O.VI,R-17 CPC:Suo moto power of court to direct amendment in pleadings

Summary: PLJ 2015 Lahore 1142 [Multan Bench Multan] Present Amin - ud - Din Khan J Mst BAKHTAN MAI and 14 others - - Petitioners versus Mst ANWAR MAI and 49 others - - Respondents WP No 5984 of 2004 heard on 242015 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - O VI R 17 - - Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Art 199 - - Acceptance of application for amendment of plaint - - Correction of names of predecessor mentioned in pedigree table in plaint - - No question of change of nature of suit - - Validity - - When there is no bar in accordance with Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in allowing proposed amendment and trial Court has exercised jurisdiction vested in it by law revisional Court was having no jurisdiction to substitute findings of trial Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction therefore findings of revisional Court are not sustainable under law - - An amendment in pleadings can be granted at any stage of proceedings even if at stage of Supreme Court - - By proposed amendment nature of suit should not change [P 1144] A B Mian Habib - ur - Rehman Ansari Advocate for Petitioners Malik Tahir Ijaz Advocate for Respondents Nos 21 and 22 Malik Muhammad Ahsan Karol Advocate for Respondents Nos 28 to 33 Mr Wazir Ahmad Khan Balouch Advocate for Respondents Nos 38 to 49Judgement Result:Petition allowed

Summary: PLJ 2014 AJK 312 Present M Tabassum Aftab Alvi J BADAR ZAMMAN 10 others - - Petitioners versus DISTRICT JUDGE HATTIAN BALA AJK 2 others - - Respondents WP No 482 of 2011 decided on 2412014 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - O XXIII R 1 - - Withdrawal of suit - - Withdrawal of suit with permission to file fresh suit cannot be claimed as a matter of right [P 315] A Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - O XXIII R1 - - AJK Interim Constitution Act 1974 S 44 - - Application for withdrawalo f suit - - Statutory law and precedents - - Suit can be withdrawn on ground of any formal defector sufficient grounds - - Validity - - Before allowing withdrawal application satisfaction of Court regarding formal defect or other sufficient grounds was necessary - - Necessary grounds and lengthy documents were also placed on record by seeking amendment in plaint therefore withdrawal application with permission to file fresh one was unwarranted hence same was rightly turned down by trial Court [P 317] B C Syed Mushtaq Hussain Gillani Advocate for Petitioners Nemo for Respondent No 1 and 3 Respondent 2 in personJudgement Result:Application turned down

Summary: PLJ 2013 AJK 55 Present Munir Ahmed Chaudhary J MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE - - Appellant versus ABDUL RAUF 10 others - - Respondents CA No 38 of 2010 decided on 1852012 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - O VI R 17 - - Proposed amendment in pleadings - - Oral sale - - Nature of suit and cause of action shall be changed by allowing proposed amendment - - Validity - - It is a settled principle of law that proposed amendment in pleadings would be fair and bona fide it might not be inconsistent and in conflict with pleadings sought to be amended it might not introduce a new cause of action or defence rendering visible change in character and complexion of the case and it might not amount to defeat a legitimate right of opposite party - - Held Proposed amendment shall fully change nature and complexion of suit and even cause of action - - Application was dismissed [P 58] A B Oral Sale - - - - - - Oral sale does not create any title or ownership in the property until sale was completed in accordance with provision of law [P 58] C Malik Muhammad Asghar Advocate for AppellantApplicant Malik Muhammad Mansha Khan Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Application dismissed

Summary: PLJ 2013 Peshawar 118 (DB) Present Mian Fasih - ul - Mulk and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel JJ MUHAMMAD ZAMAN - - Petitioner versus SIRAJ - UL - ISLAM and 11 others - - Respondents CR No 1142 - P of 2012 decided on 1332013 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - O 11 R 2 O VI R 17 - - Amendment of pleadings - - Application for permission to amendh is plaint was dismissed - - Challenge to - - During pendency of the suit father of vendors passed away - - Death of father of vendors during pendency of suit had changed overall scenario - - Question of - - Whether petitioner can ask for amendment of plaint - - Validity - - Amendments in pleadings which were necessary for determination of real question in controversy between parties can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings - - Purpose behind such a vast and broad scope of provision of law was nothing else but to determine and decide actual and real questions in controversy between parties so that dispute between parties be decided in one go and they be saved from further litigation and other legal complications of future - - If proper and genuine amendment in pleadings was not allowed then it might create legal problems under Order 11 Rule 2 of CPC and constructive res judicata for applicant - - Amendment in pleadings was necessary to do complete and substantial justice between parties then it can make an order in that regard to achieve end of justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court - - Such permission can save petitioner from future legal complications like constructive res - judicata and bar under Order 11 Rule 2 of CPC [Pp 121 122] A B C D Mr Ziaur Rehman Khan Advocate for Petitioner Mian Saadullah Jandoli and Kashif Jan Advocates for RespondentsJudgement Result:Petition allowed

Summary: PLJ 2013 SC (AJK) 153 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present Muhammad Azam Khan CJ and Ch Muhammad Ibrahim Zia J MUHAMMAD YASIN - - Appellant versus MUHAMMAD RIASAT and 13 others - - Respondents CA No 55 of 2011 decided on 22112012 (On appeal from the Judgment of the High Court dated 1622010 in Civil Appeal No 163 of 2005) Amendment of Plaint - - - - - - Tentative assessment and appreciation of over - all material - - Validity - - Prima - facie proposed amendment neither creates new cause of action nor it changes complexion of suit - - Objection of contradictory stand has no substance [P 156] A Amendment of Plaint - - - - - - Application for amendment was filed at appellate stage - - Contention of - - Such belated prayed amendment cannot be allowed - - Mere delay in filing amendment application was not a valid reason for refusal of prayed amendment [P 156] B PLD 1990 SC AJK 1 ref Amendment of Plaint - - - - - - Amendment in pleadings be allowed liberally to avoid multiplicity of litigation and resolve real and substantial controversies - - It is now almost celebrated principle of law that for doing complete justice and avoid multiplicity of litigation amendments in pleadings have to be liberally allowed [P 157] C Ch Muhammad Mehfooz Advocate for Appellant Mr M Zakria Bhatti Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Appeal dismissed

Summary: a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- O. I, R. 10 & O. VI, R. 17 ---- Addition of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings ---- Civil Revision against partial acceptance of application for impleading parties and amending plaint ---- Petitioners sought inclusion of certain mutations, alleging they were fraudulent and related to the respondents' claims, impacting the suit's outcome ---- Respondents argued that the application was belated, causing delay in proceedings, and contended that a separate comprehensive suit should be filed for such claims ---- Court found that inclusion of the mutations was necessary to resolve the real issues between the parties, and their addition would not alter the suit's nature or the relief sought by the petitioners. Court ruled that such amendments could be made at any stage under Order VI Rule 17, CPC. ----Disposition: Civil revision allowed, with the court affirming the partial acceptance of the application for the addition of parties and amendment of the plaint.